Above Average

Average

Below Average

Poor

So... I just imagined all those people who've been complaining for the past 18 years that Kirk's death wasn't handled well? And that's a canonical death.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Ron Moore, one of the writers, said so himself. Kirk's role in Generations was nothing more than a glorified cameo. He was only in the movie to have a bridge to the original series and nothing more. The actor himself hated it so much that he wrote an entire series reviving the Kirk character and while I know those don't fit into the novelverse continuity I feel that the books about Kirk's revival undid that.

Click to expand...

What you feel has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. The books, by definition, are not part of the canon, therefore yes, Kirk's death was canonical, and his resurrection was not.

And whether or not you liked Kirk's death does not change the fact that it did happen, that someone wrote a story where Kirk died, just as someone wrote a story where Janeway died. And a lot of people do feel that Kirk's death was mishandled -- and evidently you're one of those people! So you're contradicting yourself when you say Janeway was the only captain whose fate was mishandled. It's simply not a statement that holds up to scrutiny.

Even your book Watching The Clock made Janeway's death have more meaning, none of the uptime governments would have existed without her actions.

Click to expand...

Uhh, no, not really; you're confusing two different Janeway finales. It was her actions in "Endgame" that were important to the factions in the future, because they triggered the events that led to Destiny and the Caeliar's redemption of the Borg. The events of Before Dishonor were essentially peripheral to that.

I guess I should have said that Captain Janeway hasn't been treated as well as she could have been in the novelverse as the other male captains have. Out of three female captains, Janeway, Kira and Dax, the only one still around now and in a leadership position is Dax. Kirk came back, Sisko came back, Picard never left and neither did Archer. Why is it that only the female leads are treated that way?

Click to expand...

They aren't. Come on, if you've really read the literature, you know the current crop of authors is dedicated to introducing new, strong female characters and to treating all characters equally regardless of their sex. You're manufacturing a pattern that doesn't exist, partly by fixating on captains to the exclusion of other characters who are often equally important in the literature.

It's been pointed out many times that the person who decided to kill Janeway in the novels was a woman, editor Margaret Clark, so it's completely ludicrous to claim that there was any sexism behind it. You'd have to ask Margaret what her reasons were, but I'd imagine she may have felt that as an admiral, stuck in a desk job, Janeway wasn't doing anything really interesting anymore, so it might serve her character better to let her go out with a bang saving the Federation one last time. Not a gendered decision, simply a decision based on the rank and status the character canonically ended up in.

As for Kira, yes, she left a leadership position for a different life, but let me remind you, so did Sisko. Right now, the situation is that Sisko is in command but Kira isn't, but five years ago it would've been the other way around, and there's no telling where it'll be five years from now. Again, it's nonsense to read anything gendered into it; it's simply the current slice of an evolving continuity.

Also, you're forgetting one female captain, Ro Laren, who's still in a leadership position in the DS9 novels. Not to mention Captain Sonya Gomez of the da Vinci, Captain Afsarah Eden in command of the Delta Quadrant fleet, Captain Regina Farkas of the Quirinal, Captain Clarissa Glenn (commander by rank but captain by title) of the Galen, Captain Claudia Alisov of the Everett, admirals such as Nechayev, and numerous civilian authority figures like Nan Bacco and Gell Kamemor. And captains from earlier eras like Erika Hernandez, Hallie Gannon, Atish Khatami, Saavik, Demora Sulu, etc.

On the male side, it's incorrect to say that Archer is "still" a captain. As of the most current time we've seen Archer, the founding ceremony of the Federation in August 2161, Enterprise has been decommissioned for more than a year -- and if you look carefully, you'll see that Archer is never referred to as "Captain Archer" in that chapter. Onscreen bio information from "In a Mirror, Darkly" suggests that Archer went on to become an admiral and the Starfleet Chief of Staff; it's quite possible he's already an admiral by that final scene in To Brave the Storm. But whatever his rank, he's not still in command of a starship as far as we know.

So you're interpreting the data very selectively in order to support an entirely illegitimate claim that male and female characters are being treated differently. It just isn't so.

Also, you're forgetting one female captain, Ro Laren, who's still in a leadership position in the DS9 novels. Not to mention Captain Sonya Gomez of the da Vinci, Captain Afsarah Eden in command of the Delta Quadrant fleet, Captain Regina Farkas of the Quirinal, Captain Clarissa Glenn (commander by rank but captain by title) of the Galen, Captain Claudia Alisov of the Everett, admirals such as Nechayev, and numerous civilian authority figures like Nan Bacco and Gell Kamemor. And captains from earlier eras like Erika Hernandez, Hallie Gannon, Atish Khatami, Saavik, Demora Sulu, etc.

Click to expand...

Don't forget about Rana Desai. I know she wasn't a starship commander, but she was still a Captain in a leadership position.
(Does anyone know who that is in the picture on MB?)

So... I just imagined all those people who've been complaining for the past 18 years that Kirk's death wasn't handled well? And that's a canonical death.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Ron Moore, one of the writers, said so himself. Kirk's role in Generations was nothing more than a glorified cameo. He was only in the movie to have a bridge to the original series and nothing more. The actor himself hated it so much that he wrote an entire series reviving the Kirk character and while I know those don't fit into the novelverse continuity I feel that the books about Kirk's revival undid that.

Click to expand...

What you feel has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. The books, by definition, are not part of the canon, therefore yes, Kirk's death was canonical, and his resurrection was not.

And whether or not you liked Kirk's death does not change the fact that it did happen, that someone wrote a story where Kirk died, just as someone wrote a story where Janeway died. And a lot of people do feel that Kirk's death was mishandled -- and evidently you're one of those people! So you're contradicting yourself when you say Janeway was the only captain whose fate was mishandled. It's simply not a statement that holds up to scrutiny.

Even your book Watching The Clock made Janeway's death have more meaning, none of the uptime governments would have existed without her actions.

Click to expand...

Uhh, no, not really; you're confusing two different Janeway finales. It was her actions in "Endgame" that were important to the factions in the future, because they triggered the events that led to Destiny and the Caeliar's redemption of the Borg. The events of Before Dishonor were essentially peripheral to that.

I guess I should have said that Captain Janeway hasn't been treated as well as she could have been in the novelverse as the other male captains have. Out of three female captains, Janeway, Kira and Dax, the only one still around now and in a leadership position is Dax. Kirk came back, Sisko came back, Picard never left and neither did Archer. Why is it that only the female leads are treated that way?

Click to expand...

They aren't. Come on, if you've really read the literature, you know the current crop of authors is dedicated to introducing new, strong female characters and to treating all characters equally regardless of their sex. You're manufacturing a pattern that doesn't exist, partly by fixating on captains to the exclusion of other characters who are often equally important in the literature.

It's been pointed out many times that the person who decided to kill Janeway in the novels was a woman, editor Margaret Clark, so it's completely ludicrous to claim that there was any sexism behind it. You'd have to ask Margaret what her reasons were, but I'd imagine she may have felt that as an admiral, stuck in a desk job, Janeway wasn't doing anything really interesting anymore, so it might serve her character better to let her go out with a bang saving the Federation one last time. Not a gendered decision, simply a decision based on the rank and status the character canonically ended up in.

As for Kira, yes, she left a leadership position for a different life, but let me remind you, so did Sisko. Right now, the situation is that Sisko is in command but Kira isn't, but five years ago it would've been the other way around, and there's no telling where it'll be five years from now. Again, it's nonsense to read anything gendered into it; it's simply the current slice of an evolving continuity.

Also, you're forgetting one female captain, Ro Laren, who's still in a leadership position in the DS9 novels. Not to mention Captain Sonya Gomez of the da Vinci, Captain Afsarah Eden in command of the Delta Quadrant fleet, Captain Regina Farkas of the Quirinal, Captain Clarissa Glenn (commander by rank but captain by title) of the Galen, Captain Claudia Alisov of the Everett, admirals such as Nechayev, and numerous civilian authority figures like Nan Bacco and Gell Kamemor. And captains from earlier eras like Erika Hernandez, Hallie Gannon, Atish Khatami, Saavik, Demora Sulu, etc.

On the male side, it's incorrect to say that Archer is "still" a captain. As of the most current time we've seen Archer, the founding ceremony of the Federation in August 2161, Enterprise has been decommissioned for more than a year -- and if you look carefully, you'll see that Archer is never referred to as "Captain Archer" in that chapter. Onscreen bio information from "In a Mirror, Darkly" suggests that Archer went on to become an admiral and the Starfleet Chief of Staff; it's quite possible he's already an admiral by that final scene in To Brave the Storm. But whatever his rank, he's not still in command of a starship as far as we know.

So you're interpreting the data very selectively in order to support an entirely illegitimate claim that male and female characters are being treated differently. It just isn't so.

Click to expand...

I have read the literature. And you've proven you're point. I was being literal about out of the 5 captains Janeway is the one dead. I wasn't saying that the writers haven't written strong female characters. I guess this Akin controversy had clouded my judgement but I can admit I was wrong.

As far as Janeway's actions having an effect on the Temporal cold war my main point was that her life had an impact on the Federation's future. Which was really cool. Lucsley's attitude toward her reminds me of a lot of the attitudes about her from a lot of fans here on the BBS. He was pissed off that she wasn't charged with a crime. She had an impact. Good stuff.

I am sorry to argue here, but Trek's path for the last few years has been very dark. Now don't get me wrong, DS9 and the Dominion War were very dark and I liked that arc, but there just seems to have been a continuation and ramping up of that darkness as the continuity has gone on. The Borg invasion and the Typhon Pact, the loss of the Andorians, so much dark. Now Chris, don't hear me saying that it's all darkness and that there are not light moments in the schedule, but the main continuity has been pretty dark. Now I do like that Trek Lit is taking a risk here and shaking things up, but I could use a little more light and having Janeway come back would be the perfect thing for me. Especially when that is coupled with Sisko being back on DS9 (or I am hoping he is)!

^I just don't see how that's fundamentally different from before. In canon we've had Picard deeply traumatized by his Borg abduction, tortured by Gul Madred, etc., we've seen Klingon civil wars and Romulan invasion attempts, we've seen wars with the Klingons and the Dominion, we've seen Bajor suffer under brutal occupation and then struggle to rebuild itself while falling prey to religious fanaticism, we've seen Federation citizens abandoned by a treaty of convenience and turning to terrorism, we've seen Voyager suffer the loss of a large portion of its crew, we've seen the Xindi kill 7 million humans in one blow, we've seen a renewed surge of human bigotry in response to that event with the rise of Terra Prime, etc.

Fiction is not about routine or happy times. It's about conflict and crisis. It's about things going wrong, about the heroes struggling to survive and surmount terrible odds. So naturally Star Trek has almost always focused on times of turmoil and danger in the galaxy. The optimism is in how the characters prevail over that turmoil. So I really don't see how the current literature is so radically unlike anything that's come before.

Don't like putting words in people's mouths, but I think it's about the general backdrop. Back in the days of numbered novels, it was mostly adventure-of-the-week within or on the frontiers of the peaceful federation.

Now it's against the backdrop of the aftermath of the dominion war, the borg attacks and the andorian secession et al, and the outcomes are often not definitive victories. Not saying this is a bad thing, but I have noted the difference myself.

From TNG premier till the end of ENT we had 20-50 televised episodes per year, plus 20ish novels.

Now we have about 12 novels a year.

It's of course true that Star Trek has always dealt with conflict, political turmoil, torture, terrorism and peril on the galactic scale, but for 5 of those stories one also had 50 other stories that dealt with more localized and lighter matters. So naturally the overall feel is perceived to be darker in recent years.